Lena@gregtech.eu to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 2 days agoGithub > youtubegregtech.euimagemessage-square42linkfedilinkarrow-up1607arrow-down116
arrow-up1591arrow-down1imageGithub > youtubegregtech.euLena@gregtech.eu to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 2 days agomessage-square42linkfedilink
minus-squarerhabarba@feddit.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·1 day ago Git is for bazaar-style development. However, most of my own projects are cathedral-style. Git’s default user experience (CLI command syntax, for example) is weird. There are reasons why Git GUIs are popular and (e.g.) SVN GUIs never were. Git is rather spammy in terms of hard disk usage.
minus-squareprettybunnys@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up4arrow-down1·24 hours ago better in what way?
minus-squaregimmemahlulz@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up3arrow-down1·edit-223 hours ago> says there are better back ends > Doesn’t list a single one nor how they’re better
minus-squarerhabarba@feddit.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up1·21 hours agoDepends on the task. SVN or Fossil (if you need a web interface) for cathedral-style, Mercurial for bazaar-style, I’d say. Especially because of their easy to understand UX.
minus-squareSpaceNoodle@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3arrow-down1·24 hours ago Nothing is preventing git from being used for cathedral development. Nothing is preventing you from using any of the plethora of frontends available. If all of your projects are a single file, you have much deeper problems than selecting source control.
> says there are better back ends
> Doesn’t list a single one nor how they’re better
Depends on the task. SVN or Fossil (if you need a web interface) for cathedral-style, Mercurial for bazaar-style, I’d say. Especially because of their easy to understand UX.
Nothing is preventing git from being used for cathedral development.
Nothing is preventing you from using any of the plethora of frontends available.
If all of your projects are a single file, you have much deeper problems than selecting source control.